The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today won a preliminary injunction against the District of Columbia and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier’s enforcement of a requirement to provide a “good reason” when applying for a concealed carry permit.

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison
NRA, ISRA, GOA, SAF

I'm just so burnt out. I've got so much going on and not enough hours in a day to do it all.
And then 2 things happened. A Facebook post by a person who stiffed me on a job, complaining of a different problem that she's unable to get fixed at "friends and family" prices. - Grin

And then this thread. Really Really Big Grin

I've found my calm in the chaos

Edited by KarlJ, 18 May 2015 - 08:34 PM.

"Waiting periods are only a step.Registration is only a step.The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

Janet Reno

U.S. Attorney General

1993-12-10

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the governments ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."

Plaintiffs argue that the District of Columbia's "good reason"/"proper reason" requirement
fails intermediate scrutiny because it does not advance its interest in preventing crime or protecting
public safety. See Dkt. no. 6-2 at 25. Specifically, this regulation is not directed at dangerous
people, does not regulate the manner of carrying handguns, and does not impose any place
restrictions. See id. (citing Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1176-77). To support this position, Plaintiffs rely on
Fletcher v. Haas, 851 F. Supp. 2d 287 (D. Mass. 2012), and Bateman v. Perdue, 881 F. Supp. 2d
709 (E.D.N.C. 2012).

The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing
about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk
to other members of the public or reduce violent crime. Is the Court to conclude that people who do
not have a heightened need for self-protection are more likely to commit violent crimes?

This conclusion should not be read to suggest that it would be inappropriate for the District
of Columbia to enact a licensing mechanism that includes appropriate time, place and manner
restrictions on the carrying of handguns in public. The District of Columbia's arbitrary "good 13
reason"/"proper reason" requirement, however, goes far beyond establishing such reasonable
restrictions. Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the
overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for
self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Reality does not support their emotional pleas to disarm the good citizens of the USA!

“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?

It still forces the 4th circuit to have to write an opinion defending their position if they wish to overturn it and it's another voice yelling at SCOTUS to answer the question. Look at how many cases it took for gay marriage to come before SCOTUS.

Edit: I didn't see this was based in DC, so that's a separate circuit, but it still puts pressure on SCOTUS.

The simple fact that the standards were met for issuance of a preliminary injunction is quite telling. It tells me that D.C. is now fighting an uphill battle, and that hill is nearly completely vertical. I got an email from FPC last night about this, cackled. Remember that Palmer was assigned to Scullin by Chief Justice Roberts himself after years of inaction by the original district judge who was assigned the Palmer case back in 2009. I wouldn't doubt Scullin drew this case because of his familiarity with the issue.

There are still a few (maybe a lot) of elected officials in Illinois who think there is some hope of getting rid of concealed carry in this state and even of rolling back Heller and McDonald. Each decision like this is another nail in the coffin for their fantasies.

Two of the plaintiffs in Wrenn are residents of the district, and one is a Florida resident. The judge's order, I presume, applies equally to residents and non-residents.
Anyone planning to take a trip to D.C. , get the training, and submit an application? It's tempting--"just because."

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

Even if they rewrite the ordnance, it will most likely be garbage. These people just won't stop.

It's a combination of stupidity and stubbornness. How many lawsuits have been filed against the DC Council including Heller? Maybe eight or nine? They never learn.

"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."